lly-know-about-biology/]Yes indeed, how much DOES Jerry Coyne know about biology?[/URL]

Their crazy long URLs break the links sometimes, right? I think that's what happened ...Wandered over there and had a read of the Jerry Coyne/abortion farrago. Torley is a forced-birther female-enslaving fetus-worshipper; who could have guessed?

Along the way Torley the corporate-asslicker also manages to find fault with Bishop Sanchez's strongly-worded statement that predatory capitalism (viz America) allows the "wealthy [to] arrange to get all kinds of subsidies, while the working class and the poor struggle to survive"

In her article Retract that, sir, or face the consequences! Er, maybe., Denyse shows again her attention to details. She writes: "Top ten retractions of 2010, courtesy The Scientist..." While the first number mentioned in the article is indeed 2010, the year about which "The Scientist" is writing is 2013 (much more topical). That's why the journal used the title "Top 10 Retractions of 2013".

I mentioned that in a comment over there which died in the moderation queue....

Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.

There is a new chewing toy at TSZ called phoodoo. Here is a sample of his/her/its writing. A temper tantrum starts here.

If he's Joe G's sock, let's not let the cat out of the bag straight away. Do ask him about his life and understanding of math, though.

His understanding of probability is on a par with Joe's understanding of set theory, but I don't get the same bluster-covering-up-fear-of-being-exposed-as-ignorant feel from phoodoo's writing. Perhaps it is just Joe taking the time to preview before posting.

No need to be outing people, though. Regardless of his or her RL identity, phoodoo is a great example of the knowledge and manners possessed by the average intelligent design creationist.

Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.

There is a new chewing toy at TSZ called phoodoo. Here is a sample of his/her/its writing. A temper tantrum starts here.

If he's Joe G's sock, let's not let the cat out of the bag straight away. Do ask him about his life and understanding of math, though.

His understanding of probability is on a par with Joe's understanding of set theory, but I don't get the same bluster-covering-up-fear-of-being-exposed-as-ignorant feel from phoodoo's writing. Perhaps it is just Joe taking the time to preview before posting.

No need to be outing people, though. Regardless of his or her RL identity, phoodoo is a great example of the knowledge and manners possessed by the average intelligent design creationist.

This is certainly Joe-esque:

Quote

You don’t know what the terminology really means, you just know its convention in your particular circle.

The intelligent design creationists work hard, albeit ineffectually, to hide their fundamentalist dogma behind a facade of "science". One would think they'd realize the importance of concealing their misogyny, too.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)

Cantor is correct. Pi gives an infinite stream of digits with no repeating pattern. Any finite string of digits will be found in Pi an infinite number of times. Of course, the longer your search string the more digits if Pi you have to calculate to find it.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)

Cantor is correct. Pi gives an infinite stream of digits with no repeating pattern. Any finite string of digits will be found in Pi an infinite number of times. Of course, the longer your search string the more digits if Pi you have to calculate to find it.

I'm afraid that it isn't proven yet that pi is a normal number (though most mathematicians would bet that it is one...) At the moment we cannot say that each finite number can be found in the decimal representation of pi - but every short string of numbers (birthdates, etc.) has been found :-)

Trivially, all are pi-digits. Maybe not consecutive pi-digits. If he wanted to know which of the sequences corresponded to a range of consecutive digits found in the decimal representation of pi, I'm sure KF would have asked for that :)

I'm afraid that it isn't proven yet that pi is a normal number (though most mathematicians would bet that it is one...) At the moment we cannot say that each finite number can be found in the decimal representation of pi - but every short string of numbers (birthdates, etc.) has been found :-)

I'm not sure that full normality is required. Only base 10 needs to be looked at, and even then, equal proportions of each digit are not required. If, for example, '1' occurred at twice the frequency of any other digit, then all the specified strings would still appear somewhere in Pi. You might just have to search further to find them.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."